THE TESTING OF A PRESIDENT; Excerpts From Debate on Plan to Begin an Impeachment Inquiry

Following are excerpts from comments by members of the House today during its debate on a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Clinton, as recorded by the Federal News Service, a private transcription service, and The New York Times:

Representative Rick Boucher

Democrat of Virginia

At the conclusion of this debate, I will offer a motion to recommit the resolution offered by the gentleman from Illinois to the Committee on the Judiciary with the instruction that the committee immediately report back that resolution to the House with instructions that it contain our Democratic alternative. . . .

The Democratic amendment is a resolution for a full and complete review by the Judiciary Committee of the material that has been presented to the House by the Office of Independent Counsel. The Republican resolution also provides for that full and complete review.

The difference between the Democratic and the Republican approaches is only over the scope of the review, only over the time that the review will take and only over our insistence that the Judiciary Committee in conducting its process pay deference and become aware of the historical Constitutional standard for impeachment that has evolved to us over the centuries and was recognized most recently by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and then recognized by the full House of Representatives.

The public interest requires a fair and deliberate inquiry in this matter. Our resolution provides for that fair and deliberate inquiry. But the public interest also requires an appropriate boundary on the scope of the inquiry. It should not become an invitation for a free-ranging fishing expedition subjecting to a formal impeachment inquiry matters that are not before the Congress today.

The potential for such a venture should be strictly limited by the resolution adopted today by the House and our Democratic proposal contains those appropriate limits. It would subject to the inquiry the material presented to us by the Office of Independent Counsel, which is the only material before the House today.

The public interest also requires that the matter be brought to conclusion at the earliest possible time that is consistent with a thorough and a complete review. The country has already undergone substantial trauma. If the committee carries this work beyond the time that is reasonably needed to conduct its complete and thorough review, that injury to the nation will only deepen.

We should be thorough, but we should also be prompt. Given that the facts of this matter are generally well-known, given that there are only a handful of witnesses who have relevant information that can be addressed in this inquiry, and given the further fact that all of those witnesses have already been the subject of extensive review by the grand jury and their testimony is available, this inquiry can, in fact, be prompt.

The committee's work should not extend into next year. A careful and a thorough review can be accomplished between now and the end of this year, and our Democratic resolution provides that appropriate limitation on time. The resolution requires that the committee hold hearings on the Constitutional standard for impeachment which was clearly stated in the conclusion of the committee's report in the Watergate years of 1974. Our substitute then directs that the committee compare the facts that are stated in the referral of the Independent Counsel to that historical Constitutional standard. And if any facts rise to the level of impeachable conduct, that material would then be subjected to the thorough inquiry and review process. . . .

Under the resolution that we are putting forth, the committee will begin its work on the 12th day of October -- that's next Monday -- and will conclude all proceedings, including the consideration of recommendations during the month of December. There would then be ample time for the House of Representatives to consider those recommendations and conclude its work by the end of this year. The procedure we're recommending is fair. It is thorough. It is prompt. It is a recommendation for an inquiry. It would assure an appropriate scope. It would give deference to the historical Constitutional standard for impeachment and it would assure that this matter is put behind us so the nation can proceed with its very important business by the end of this year.

Representative Charles E. Schumer

Democrat of Brooklyn

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious and solemn day. And after a careful reading of the Starr report and other materials submitted by the Office of the Independent Counsel, as well as a study of the origins and history of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution, I have come to the conclusion that given the evidence before us, while the President deserves significant punishment, there is no basis for impeachment of the President and it is time to move on and solve the problems facing the American people like health care, education and protecting seniors' retirement.

To me, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the President lied when he testified before the grand jury, not to cover a crime, but to cover embarrassing personal behavior. While it is true that in ordinary circumstances and in most instances an ordinary person would not be punished for lying about an extramarital affair, the President has to be held to a higher standard and must be held accountable.

But high crimes and misdemeanors as defined in the Constitution and as amplified by the Federalist Papers and Justice Story, have always been intended to apply to public actions relating to or affecting the operation of the Government, not to personal or private conduct.

That said, the punishment for lying about an improper sexual relationship should fit the crime. Censure or rebuke is the appropriate punishment. Impeachment is not.

It is time to move forward and not have the Congress and American people endure the specter of what could be a yearlong focus on a tawdry but not impeachable affair. Today the world economy is in crisis and cries out for American leadership, without which worldwide turmoil is a grave possibility. The American people cry out for us to solve the problems facing them.

This investigation, now in its fifth year, has run its course. It is time to move on.

Representative Paul McHale

Democrat of Pennsylvania

I want my strong criticism of President Clinton to be placed in context. I voted for President Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I believed him to be the man from Hope as he was depicted in his 1992 campaign video. I have voted for more than three-fourths of the President's legislative agenda, and I would do so again.

My blunt criticism of the President has nothing to do with policy. Moreover, the President has always treated me with courtesy and respect, and he has been more than responsive to the concerns of my constituents.

Unfortunately, the President's misconduct has now made immaterial my past support or agreement with him on issues. Last Jan. 17 the President of the United States attempted to cover up a sordid and irresponsible relationship by repeated deceit under oath in a Federal civil rights suit.

Contrary to his later public statement, his answers were not legally accurate. They were intentionally and blatantly false. He allowed his lawyer to make arguments to the court based on an affidavit that the President knew to be false. The President later deceived the American people and belatedly admitted the truth only when confronted some seven months later by a mountain of irrefutable evidence.

I am convinced that the President would otherwise have allowed his false testimony to stand in perpetuity. . . .

The question is whether or not we will say to all of our citizens, including the President of the United States: When you take an oath, you must keep it. . . .

And if in disgust or dismay, we were to sweep aside the President's immoral and illegal conduct, what dangerous precedent would we set for the abuse of power by some future President of the United States?

We cannot define the President's character, but we must define the nation's. I urge an affirmative vote on the resolution.

Representative Robert Wexler

Democrat of Florida

God help this nation if today we become a Congress of endless investigation, accomplices to this un-American inquisition that would destroy the Presidency over an extramarital affair. The global economy is crumbling, and we're talking about Monica Lewinsky. Saddam Hussein hides weapons, and we're talking about Monica Lewinsky. Genocide racks Kosovo, and we're talking about Monica Lewinsky. Children cram into packed classrooms, and we're talking about Monica Lewinsky. Families can't pay their medical bills, and we're talking about Monica Lewinsky. God help this nation if we trivialize the Constitution of the United States and reject the conviction of our founding fathers that impeachment is about no less than the subversion of the government. The President betrayed his wife. He did not betray the country. God help this nation if we fail to recognize the difference.

Representative Asa Hutchinson

Republican of Arkansas

Today we are considering a resolution of inquiry in the conduct of the President of the United States. It is not about a person, but it is about the rule of law. Each of us took a simple oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution provides a path to follow in these circumstances, the path may not be well worn, but it is well marked, and we would be wise to follow it, rather than to concoct our own ideas on how to proceed.

The gentleman from New York indicated that, concluded that the President has lied under oath, that he should be punished but he should not be impeached. The gentleman is way ahead in his conclusion of where this process should be and where I am. I would say that this process is not about punishment. The purpose of this process is to examine the public trust and if it is breached, to repair it. We have been referred serious charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. The President and his lawyers have denied each of these charges as is his right to do. Our response should be that we need to examine these facts to determine the truth and to weigh the evidence, and it is our highest duty today to vote for this inquiry so that if the result is there are no impeachable offenses, we could move on. But if there is more to be done, then we can assure that the rule of law will not be suspended or ignored by this Congress.

The Watergate model was chosen because that was what was demanded by my friends from across the aisle. This resolution does not direct the committee to go into any additional areas, but it does give the committee the authority to carry out its responsibility and to bring this matter to a conclusion without further delay . . .

Did the President participate in a scheme to obstruct justice? Did the President commit perjury? Do these allegations, if proven, constitute impeachable offenses? We can answer these questions in a fair and bipartisan manner and that is my commitment. People say this is not Watergate. That's true. Every case is different. But the rule of law and our obligation to it does not change. They do not change because of position, personalities or power. The rule of law and justice depends upon this truth. I ask my colleagues to support the resolution.

Many of us have labored very hard to craft a plan that would allow us to deal with the referral of the independent counsel in a way that is focused, in a way that is fair, in a way that's prompt and efficient and most of all, in a way that puts our Constitution first.

I am very distressed to say that I do not see that that is going to happen today in these chambers. I fear that what Hamilton warned against, Alexander Hamilton warned against in 65 Federalist Paper, that there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than the real demonstration of innocence or guilt. That prophesy, that fear is about to be realized.

I believe that the majority has used its raw voting power to create a proposal that could result in a wide ranging and lengthy impeachment inquiry. The Judiciary Committee may become the standing committee on impeachments, and a further fear is that the rules in the Constitution may never be applied to the referral that has been sent to us. Or even worse, we may end up as happened Monday with the majority counsel creating entirely new rules for high crimes and misdemeanors, which will have a very serious distorting effect on our constitutional system of Government.

When we are lost, the best thing to do is to look to our Constitution as a beacon of light and a guideline to get us through trying times. Impeachment historically was to be used for when the misconduct of the executive was so severe that it threatened the very constitutional system of government itself. Ben Franklin described it as the alternative to assassination.

It is that standard that needs to be applied in this case. The question is not whether the President's misconduct was bad. We all know that the President's misconduct was bad. The question is, Are we going to punish America instead of him for his misconduct?

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Republican of Florida

Our laws promise a remedy against sexual harassment. But if we say that lying about sex in court is acceptable or even expected, then we have made our sexual harassment laws nothing more than a false promise, a fraud upon our society, upon our legal system and upon women.

Lying under oath and obstruction of justice are ancient crimes of great weight because they shield other offenses, blocking the light of truth in human affairs. They are a dagger in the heart of our legal system and our democracy. They cannot and must not be tolerated. The office of the Presidency is due great respect, but the President is a citizen with the same duty to follow the laws as all other citizens. The world marvels that our President is not above the law, and my vote today helps assure that this rule continues.

Representative Bill McCollum

Republican of Florida

The question for us today is not whether or not the President committed impeachable offenses or whether or not we're here to impeach. The question is, Do the allegations that have been presented to us by Kenneth Starr and his report merit further consideration?

Some would have you believe today that even if all of those allegations were proven to be true that the answer is 'no.' They're wrong. The issue before us when we consider this matter is not Monica Lewinsky. The issue is not sex, the issue is not whether the President committed adultery or betrayed his wife.

The issue is, Did the President of the United States commit the felony crime of perjury by lying under oath in a deposition in a sexual harassment case? The issue is, Did the President of the United States commit the felony crime of perjury by lying under oath to a grand jury? The issue is, Did the President of the United States commit a felony crime of obstructing justice or the felony crime of witness tampering? And if he did, are these high crimes and misdemeanors that deserve impeachment? . . .

If he is judged to have committed a high crime and misdemeanor for committing these other crimes of perjury, we will have determined that indeed he is no longer the legal officer at the highest pinnacle of this country. Because to leave him sitting there is to undermine the very judicial system we have. It is to convey the message that perjury is O.K. Certainly at least perjury in certain matters and under certain circumstances.

It is not O.K. It is a very serious crime. Obstructing justice is, witness tampering is . . .

What do we say in the future to all of those people who take the oath of office who say, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . . . If we leave this President alone, if he committed these crimes, then we have undermined our Constitution and we have undermined our system of justice.

Representative Bob Barr

Republican of Georgia

The step we are taking today is one I first urged nearly a year ago. All we are doing today is taking the constitutionally equivalent step of impaneling a grand jury to inquire into whether or not the evidence shall sustain that offenses have, in fact, occurred.

The passage of H.Res. 581 will mark the dawn of a new era in American Government. We are sending the American people a clear message that truth is more important than partisanship and that the Constitution cannot be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, that no longer will we turn a blind eye to clear evidence of obstruction of justice, perjury and abuse of power.

We will be sending a message to this and all future Presidents that if, in fact, the evidence establishes that you or any future President have committed perjury, obstruction of justice, subversion of our judicial system, then we will be saying, No, sir, Mr. President, these things you cannot do.

It is our job as legislators to diagnose threats to our democracy and eliminate them. By the time the damage to our system is so great that everyone can see it, the wounds will be too deep to heal. We have already waited too long to address this issue. We must move forward quickly, courageously, fairly and most importantly, constitutionally along the one and the one and only path charted for us in the Constitution: the impeachment process.

We must do this, Mr. Speaker, so that tomorrow morning, as we in this chamber, as teachers all across America lead their students in the Pledge of Allegiance, we can look America in the eye and say, Yes, at least for today, the Constitution is alive and well.

Representative Maxine Waters

Democrat of California

The decision of the Republicans to limit the debate on this very important resolution to decide whether this body will move with an inquiry to impeach is a continuation of the partisan, unfair, inconsiderate actions that have dictated the management of this impeachment crisis since independent counsel Ken Starr dumped his referral in the laps of this Congress and in the laps of the public. This continuous, shameless and reckless disregard for the Constitution, basic civil rights and the citizens of this country cannot be tolerated.

This is a sad and painful time for all of us. The least we can do is handle this matter with dignity and fairness for everyone involved. Four and one-half years, $40 million, unnecessary subpoenas of uninvolved individuals and Mr. Starr's close relationships with groups and individuals with demonstrated hatred for the President taints the independent counsel's investigation. This Congress does not need a protracted, open-ended witch hunt of intimidation, embarrassment and harassment.

The tawdry and trashy thousands of pages of hearsay, accusations, gossips and stupid telephone chatter does not meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The President's actions in this matter are disappointing and unacceptable but not impeachable.

Mr. Schippers, the general counsel for the Republicans, extended the allegations in search of something, anything, that may meet the Constitutional standards. Even the extended and added allegations do not comport with the Constitution.

It's time to move on. Reprimand the President. Condemn him. But let's move on. These grossly unfair procedures will only tear this Congress and this nation apart. . . .

Let us be wise enough to move forward and spend our precious time working on the issues of education, health care, senior citizens, children and in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker and ministers, justice and opportunity for all Americans.

Representative Bob Inglis

Republican of South Carolina

Of course, we do want to move along to important issues facing the country. We do want to restore freedom and health care. We do want to secure the future of Medicare and Social Security. And we do want to continue the progress toward balancing the budget. All of those things we want to do.

But I would ask my colleagues to consider this: Really, this is the crucial business of the country. This is the crucial business.

As we go into the next century, the question is, Does the truth even matter?

Now, some would say, Let's just move along. It doesn't matter. Just move along.

But if you move along, what you're leaving aside is serious allegations of serious crimes.

Representative Chet Edwards

Democrat of Texas

I'm deeply disappointed that the Republican leadership has placed an incredibly unfair gag rule on a constitutional debate of historic proportions. If this gag rule is the first test of the Republicans' fairness in this inquiry, they have failed that test.

The most important issue today, Mr. Speaker, before us is not the Nov. 3 elections or even the fate of President Clinton. The most important issue before us is the historical precedent we set in beginning the process of undoing an election for the most important office of our land.

The right to vote is the foundation of our entire democracy. To override the votes of millions of Americans in a Presidential election is an extraordinary action. It is a radical action. And, in effect, it is allowing the votes of 535 citizens to override the votes of tens of millions of citizens.

In its rush to begin an impeachment inquiry, just days before a crucial election, this Congress will have lowered the threshold for future Presidential impeachment inquiries in such a way that compromises the independence of the Presidency as a co-equal branch of Government.

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich

Democrat of Ohio

I rise today, not on behalf of Democrats or Republicans but as an American who is deeply concerned that our country bring closure to the charges against the President.

A vote for an inquiry is not the same as a vote for impeachment. This vote is neither a vote to impeach nor a license to conduct a partisan witch hunt . . .

I believe there will be no resolution without an open hearing. And there will be no accountability without an open hearing. And there will be no closure for this country, for this Congress or for our President without an open hearing. . . .

The American people expect it to proceed fairly, expeditiously and then they expect it to end. The people want us to get this over with. And they will be watching.

Let the President make his case. Give him a chance to clear his name and get back to his job. Bring everything out in the open. Bring forward the accusers and subject them to the light of day.

Settle this and then move forward to do the business of the people, the business for which the people elected us: To further economic growth, to protect Social Security, to improve health care and to meet all the other pressing needs of the American people.

Representative Charles B. Rangel

Democrat of Manhattan

My colleagues, I had the privilege of serving on the Watergate Judiciary Committee. And one difference then, as opposed to now, is that we worked together as Republicans and Democrats to search for the facts and report to the House of Representatives for them to make a determination.

Now we don't have any question of trying to impeach the President of the United States or protecting the integrity of the Congress or the Constitution.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

The Republicans don't want to impeach and wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot political pole. They know at the end of this year that this Congress is over.

And they even want to carry this over for the next two years to attempt to hound this President, who's been elected twice, out of office. And the reason for it is because it's the only thing that they have to take to the American people before this election.

You know, the fact that you have re-named National Airport after Ronald Reagan. You have deep-sixed the tax code to the year 2002.

On the question of Social Security, what have you done? Tried to rape the reserve.

What have you done as it relates to minimum wage and providing jobs? What have you done for education? What have you done for the health of the people of this nation?

Well, you're not just going to get elected by hounding the President of the United States because as you judge the President of the United States the voters will be judging you on Nov. 3.

Representative Lamar Smith

Republican of Texas

Others continue to argue or continue to imply that this inquiry is only about a personal relationship. But that's like saying Watergate was only about picking a lock or that the Boston Tea Party is only about tea. During a similar investigation of President Nixon 24 years ago, there was little focus on the burglary. The Judiciary Committee and the Special Prosecutor rightly wanted to know as we should today, whether the President lied to the American people, obstructed justice, or abused his office.

While some try to describe this scandal as private, the President's own Attorney General found that there existed credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing. This is not a decision to go forward with an inquiry into a personal relationship. It is about examining the most public of relationships between a witness and the courts, between the President and the American people. It is about respect for the law, respect for the office of the presidency, respect for the American people, respect for the officers of the court. Respect for women and ultimately about self-respect.

Representative Nancy Pelosi

Democrat of California

I rise in opposition to the Hyde Resolution and in doing so point out the inconsistency of the Republican majority. At the start of this Congress the Republican majority gave you, Mr. Speaker, the highest honor this House can bestow, the Speakership. For the freshmen Republicans this was the first vote that they cast in this House. The Republican majority did this after you, Mr. Speaker, were charged with and admitted to lying under oath to the Ethics Committee about the conduct of your political affairs.

How inconsistent then, Mr. Speaker, for this same Republican majority to move to an impeachment inquiry of the President for lying about his personal life. Our Republican majority have said lying under oath is a dagger in the heart of the legal system. We all agree that lying is wrong. But why the double standard? I urge my colleagues to reject this Republican double standard which exalts the Speaker and moves to impeach the President. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Hyde Resolution.

Representative Lloyd Doggett

Democrat of Texas

The real question here today is not whether to begin an inquiry, but whether it will ever end. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, it's really rabbit trail-gate that I'm concerned about. We do not need Ken Starr squared in this chamber. The only way to force this Congress to get back to the real concerns of American families like tax reform and Social Security reform is to bring this matter to a prompt conclusion.

As a former Supreme Court Justice, I will not defend the indefensible, but, by golly, there is a way to punish the lying without punishing the American people who have clearly had enough of this and then some. . . . The Democratic amendment assures that that will happen.

Representative Vito J. Fossella

Republican of Staten Island

Earlier today one of my colleagues said that this would be the most divisive issue . . . since the Vietnam War. And while he may believe that to be true, I take strong exception with that and I'll tell you why. Men and women were sent overseas like every war and military conflict since our nation's birth to defend the rule of law, the notions of personal freedom and individual liberty. And in the case before us today we're asking a simple question, did the President of the United States violate any of those rules of law that we cherish and that so many men and women have died for and are willing to die for at every point around the globe.

Representative John Conyers Jr.

Senior Democrat on Judiciary Committee

Gerald Ford has said that we must take the path back to dignity; and I want that to weigh on your hearts for this next hour, because more is at stake than the President's fate.

Moving with dispatch, Gerald Ford said, the House Judiciary Committee should be able to conclude a preliminary inquiry into possible grounds for impeachment before the end of the year.

I think that we can do it. Our resolution calls for it. I've talked incessantly in private meetings with Chairman Hyde toward this end. And I hope that all of us will commit ourselves to that goal.

I . . . just want you to know that in my view, the American people have a deep sense of right and wrong, of fairness and privacy. And I believe that the Kenneth W. Starr investigation may have offended those sensibilities. Who are we in the Congress and what is it that we stand for? . . .

Do we want to have prosecutors with unlimited powers, accountable to no one, who will spend millions of dollars investigating a person's sex life? Is that the precedent we're setting? Who then haul them before grand juries -- every person that they've known . . . of the opposite sex, a person that they had contact with, and then record and release videos to the public of the grand jury questioning the most private aspects of one's personal life? Please, I beg you not to denigrate this very important process in Article II, Section 4.

Representative Barney Frank

Democrat of Massachusetts

Someone inaccurately -- well-intended, but inaccurately -- said the Democrats were agreeing there should be an inquiry. No. Let me define what we say. We accept the fact that the statutorially designated independent counsel sent us a referral and we are obligated to look at it.

But what our resolution says is, let's first look at what he has alleged, and assuming that it is true, decide whether or not those things are impeachable. There's a very real question. If you look at the dismissal of the charge that Richard Nixon didn't pay his income tax, because it was a personal matter, that would suggest some of these are not impeachable. If you get to the question of lying -- in fact, both the Speaker and I have been reprimanded by this House for lying before official proceedings. That has not kept either of us from continuing to do our duty to our best possible.

We will have to look at whether or not these are impeachable issues, but the question is, do we look at those or do we look at a whole range of other things? And I think my Republican colleagues fear that there is not enough in those accusations to meet the impeachment standard, and that's why they refuse and refuse and refuse to limit it, not to get into the -- not just a fishing expedition, but the deep-sea fishing expedition of Whitewater and the other matters.

And scope affects time. It is because they are holding out the hope that something will turn up, after four years, about Whitewater and the F.B.I. files and the Travel Office and all of these other accusations that have to date proven to be dry holes for those trying to get Bill Clinton, they want to not limit the time because they need to keep it open.

But here's what that means in terms of time. Under our resolution, which calls for a Dec. 31 deadline, we would begin work right away on our time. This Congress is about to adjourn. And on our time, which would otherwise be not dealing with the public's business, we're ready to get into it. Under their resolution, let me make it very clear to you, they have no real plans to do anything during October. We've read about that. They're not going to start till after the election; they're not going to start till two months after we got Kenneth Starr's report because they think it won't play out well in the election.

So vote for their resolution and you will find that the American people's time will be taken up again next year. We're ready to do it now on our time and get it out of the way. They are asking you to give them a mandate to stretch it out, wait till after the election, and let it dominate next year, to our detriment, just as it has so far.

Representative James E. Rogan

Republican of California

I want to say, as a Republican, that as we begin this procedure, I start with the presumption that the President is deemed innocent of any allegation of wrongdoing unless and until the contrary is shown. And every reasonable inference that can be given to the President must be given to the President.

It's unfortunate that some of today's rhetoric would suggest that this resolution seeks nothing more than to have carte blanche opportunity for Congress to inquire into the President's personal life style. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, it is our purpose, it is our legal obligation to review any President's potentially constitutional misconduct within the framework of the Constitution and the rule of law.

When serious and credible allegations have been raised against any President, the Constitution obliges us to determine whether such conduct violated that President's obligation to faithfully execute the law. We must make this determination, or else forever sacrifice our heritage that no person is above the law. This Congress must decide whether we as a nation will turn a blind eye to allegations respecting both the subversion of the courts and the search for truth.

Mr. Speaker, I fear for my country when conduct such as perjury and obstruction of justice is no longer viewed with opprobrium but instead is viewed as a sign of legal finesse or personal sophistication. This House has an obligation to embrace the words of one of our predecessors, Abraham Lincoln, who called on every American lover of liberty not to violate the rule of law nor show toleration for those who do.

Mr. Speaker, there's a difference between knowing the truth and doing the truth. We have an obligation to both. And we have that obligation despite whatever personal or political discomfort it might bring. For as Justice Holmes once said, ''If justice requires the truth to be known, the difficulty in knowing it is no excuse not to try.''

Let our body be faithful to this search, and in doing so we will be faithful both to our founders and to our heirs.

Representative David E. Bonior

Minority whip

We gather today to make a serious decision. What the President did is wrong. And he should be held accountable.

Today, we have an obligation to proceed in a manner that is fair, that upholds our constitutional duties and allows us to get this matter over with so we can get on with the business of the American people.

Unfortunately, the Republican proposal meets none of these standards. It is unfair; it is unlimited and it prolongs this process indefinitely. Under the Republican plan, Congress will spend the next two years mired in hearings, tangled in testimony and grinding its gears in partisan stalemate. And today is just another example of that partisanship, that unbridled partisanship.

There are 435 members that serve in this body, more on the floor today than I've seen in a long time, representing each about a half a million people. And what has happened in this proceeding today? Two hours of debate. Two hours. Members having to go and beg for 20 seconds to talk to their constituency about one of the most important votes they will ever have to cast.

Mr. Speaker, you just said it a few minutes ago, that this is one of the most important debates that we will have. Why are hundreds of members of this body being denied the opportunity to express themselves? This is a charade of justice. The American people, through this truncated debate, are being railroaded. Today's proceedings are a hit and run.

The Republican leadership's long-term strategy is very, very clear. Drag this thing out, week after week; month after month and, yes, year after year, not for the good of the country, but for their own partisan advantage.

The Democratic amendment guarantees that any inquiry will be fair, that it will be limited and that we will complete our work by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, the American people already have had all the sordid details they need, more than they ever wanted. Do we really want two more years of Monica Lewinsky? Two more years of Linda Tripp? Two more years of parents having to mute their TV sets so they could watch the 6 o'clock news? We in this chamber have the power to stop this daily mudslide into the nation's living rooms.

If the Republicans spend two years dragging this investigation out, when will they deal with education? If you spend two years dragging this investigation out, when will you deal with H.M.O. reform? If you spend two years dragging this investigation out, when will you strengthen Social Security?

I urge my colleagues, let us put a limit, a limit on this investigation. Let's end it this year. This year. Let's get back to working for our children and our families and for our communities.

Representative Henry J. Hyde

Judiciary Committee chairman

I'm very sorry that you feel you were shortchanged on the debate. As you know, under the rule, and under the Rodino format, you were entitled to one hour. We doubled that. I didn't think that was fair. But we could have gone on and on and much of the same thing said over and over again. But it would be too much for me to expect appreciation for doubling the time, but the hostility ----.

Let me suggest to you who think this is going to go on, like Tennyson's brook, just on and on and on, the 22d Amendment to the Constitution says the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meetings shall begin at noon on the third day of January. We're out of business at the end of the year. Our money runs out. And if we're to continue, if there's anything to continue, we would have to reconstitute ourself. I don't want this to go one day longer than it has to. Believe me, this is very painful, and I want it ended. We're not going to go on and on and on.

But Mr. Rodino faced up to the problem of time limits, and here's what he said. And why do you reject Mr. Rodino, time and again, in all of these issues? He's our model. He's the one we're following. And here's what he said:

''The chairman recognizes, as the committee does, that to be locked into such a date would be totally irresponsible and unwise. The committee would be in no position to state at this time whether our inquiry would be completed, would be thorough, so that we can make a fair and responsible judgment.'' . . .

As far as standards are concerned, something that you have repeatedly brought up, let me quote from the wonderful report by the Rodino committee concerning the Nixon impeachment, on the question of standards. Listen to Mr. Rodino:

''Similarly, the House does not engage in abstract, advisory or hypothetical debates about the precise nature of conduct that calls for the exercise of its constitutional powers. Rather it must await full development of the facts and understanding of the events to which those facts relate.'' That's what we want to do, develop the facts through an inquiry.

On with Mr. Rodino: ''This memorandum offers no fixed standards for determining whether grounds for impeachment exist. The framers did not write a fixed standard. Instead, they adopted from English history a standard sufficiently general and flexible to meet future circumstances and events.''

Thus spake Peter Rodino, and that is our model for this adventure, this excursion, this journey that we're on.

Now look, this is not about sexual misconduct any more than Watergate was about a third-rate burglary. It was about the reaction of the chief executive to that event. Nixon covered it up and got in the direst of trouble. The problem with President Clinton's situation is a reaction, which -- we believe and we want to find out, and if we don't get the information, we'll reject it -- caused him to lie under oath.

Now, lying under oath is either important, or it isn't. If some people can lie under oath and others can't, let's find out. If some subjects are ''lie-able'' -- that is, you can lie about them -- and others are not, let's fine-tune our jurisprudence that way. But if the same law applies to everybody equally, that's the American tradition. And that's what we're looking at.

This has not anything to do with sex; it has a lot to do with suborning perjury, tampering with witnesses, obstructing justice and perjury, all of which impact on our Constitution and our system of justice and the kind of country we are.

The President of the United States is the trustee of the nation's conscience. We are entitled to explore fairly, fully and expeditiously the circumstances that have been alleged to compromise that position. We'll do it quickly. We'll do it fairly. We want to get this behind our -- behind us and behind the country and move on. But it's our duty. It's an onerous, miserable, rotten duty, but we have to do it, or we break faith with the people who sent us here.

Representative Richard Gephardt

Minority leader

Mr. Speaker and members of the House, it's almost a month to the day that we stood here and debated whether or not to release the materials that Ken Starr had sent to the Congress. And I tried to say at that time that this was a time of utmost importance to us as a House of Representatives and to all of us as a people.

I said then, and I repeat today, that we are engaged now in what I believe to be a sacred process. We are considering whether or not to ultimately, if we get that far, overturn an election voted on by millions of Americans to decide who should be the chief executive officer of this country. . . .

I said the other day that this is a time to be bigger than we really are. We're all human. We all make mistakes. We all give in to pettiness and pride. We all give in to doing things wrong for the wrong reasons. But this is a time when our Constitution and our people ask each of us to reach inside of ourselves, to be bigger and better than we really are.

In my view, we shouldn't have two resolutions, or a resolution and amendment, out here today. I believe if we had succeeded in what we should be doing, we would have one resolution, agreed to by all 435 members, today. The question, you see, is not whether to have an inquiry. The question today is what kind of inquiry will this be?

Our amendment is simple and I think it's common sense. First, it says it must be focused. We operate under a statute that we passed, from the independent counsel, that said there could be referrals from the independent counsel on possible issues of impeachment, and we should take that up. And that's what's before us. Our resolution says stick with those referrals. . . .

Second, it must be fair. Last time we had Watergate, the committee spent a good deal of time considering the standards and the history of impeachment so that all the members of the committee and on the floor would understand the historic process that we're involved in. None of us do this very often; we don't think about this very often. So it's vital and important that we all know what it is we're doing, and whether or not the facts that are out there rise as a prima facie case. That has not been done in this case.

Third time, we say let's get it over by December the 31st, before the new Congress comes into session. Why do we say that? We say that because we believe deeply that for the good of the country and the good of our people, this must be done by the end of this year, before there's a new Congress.

And why do we say that? We say it because we live in a dangerous world; the world economy is in a shambles, our own economy is threatened. Issues like education and health care and economics need to be on the front burner of this Congress. That's what we must be working on. If we stay here for 3, 6, 9, 12 months, two years in suspended animation, while we go over every charge that's out there, we will hurt our country and our people and our children.

Now, Mr. Hyde has said, and I believe Mr. Hyde, that we should do this by the end of the year. But he also said New Year's promises sometimes get broken.

Mr. Hyde has said that we should not be on a fishing expedition. But others in the party I've heard, even leaders in the party, the Republican Party, have said, ''Well, we've got to look at Travelgate; and we've got to look at Filegate; and we've got to look at campaign finance, and we've got to look at the Chinese rocket sales.'' And you say it again.

I've really thought a lot about this. I've really thought a lot about it. I've tried to think to myself, What is our problem? And I think I've identified it. Our problem is we don't trust one another.

Representative Charles T. Canady

Republican of Florida

As we consider the motion to recommit, I would ask that the members of the House on both sides of the aisle step back and consider the fact that what is proposed in the motion to recommit is without any precedent.

There is no case in the 200-year history of the impeachment process in this country in which a process similar to the process which is proposed here has been followed -- none at all. And I believe that's something that we should take very seriously.

I believe we also have to be aware that if we adopt the motion to recommit, we are setting a precedent today, and I believe it would be a terrible precedent, a precedent that would be fraught with the potential for harm stretching far into the future of our country.

Now consider the process that this motion sets up. First we are required to assume the truth of allegations which the President and his lawyers vigorously deny. I don't think that's the right thing to do. We should find out what the truth is. But while we're following this process, we put aside the weighing and the balancing of the facts and the judging of the credibility of witnesses.

Having put aside our duty to weigh the facts and find the truth, we are then called on to make a solemn determination concerning whether impeachable offenses were committed, if the assumed facts, which are denied by the President, are at some later point determined to be true.

This simply does not make sense. It will only cause delay. It has never been done before, and it shouldn't be done now. . . . We should support the resolution recommended by the Judiciary Committee.